If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'm being pedantic, but that statement isn't true.You give up tonnes of liberties to make the roads safer eg not being able to drink too much and then get into a car, not being able to drive faster than the speed limit, not to drive the on the wrong side of the road.
Well Iraq wasn’t part of the war on terror was it? Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. And while Rumsfeld made the odd inaccurate reference to a link between Saddam and 9/11 the main justification for invading Iraq was the WMD claim and to liberate the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.
Although yes, you make a point; the only real people to benefit from the Iraq war in the short term have been the Iranians and al qaeda. And as a fairly secular Muslim yes Saddam wasn’t popular with the fundamentalist terrorist Muslims – although that doesn’t excuse the atrocities that he authorised.
and lets not forget about american deffence contractors.
Tough to leave what's nopt there in the first place. The fact you think it can exist at all is where your free will took the long road. If it's not an optional belief then you are suffering from a delusion. Sorry, that's just the way it is.
You've got it the wrong way around. By acting as if the country is there, you "create" it. My next door neighbour murders someone. Does that show me as a bad person? of course not, the idea's ridiculous. Somehow if he lives 300 miles away he's part of me by some magical osmosis. Bullshit, plain and simple.
I'm responsible for me, you are responsible for you. We are seperate individuals, and that's all we will ever be.
How do you represent someone without their permission?
It's what they are for. An operation that funds itself through theft, demands total obedience and will use any method it fancies no matter how violent can't really be expected to do anything else, can it?
Because the basic excuse for having a large body of people with guns wandering around is that they represent someone elses interest and not just their own. By trying to punish them, you are claiming partial ownership of them and giving credence to the idea that you are related.
Well spotted. So why support them if all you get is shit for it?
Two things strike me about this. (Well three, but one only really applies to me) First, those things are likely to work ID cards aren't. Second as I already said the risk is much greater, closer to home and likely so theres something in it to follow them. Third (oh go on then) I generally pay very little attention to that stuff anyway, I make my own decisions about what I do in my car.
The difference is that a soldier is a representative of your country. Especialy in the eyes of the country they are currently occupying.
No argument from me there.
in theory as a citizen you are a member of your country, part of the social contract.
Their connection to a country is quite evident through the flag patch they wear on their uniform. By not responding to a wrong the have commited, it appears as though the body they represent condones the action.
I support my country, not my government. Governments can be changed for the better or worse, the values and principles of a country remain (whether the government chooses to follow them is a different matter).
Duh. Way to miss the point. Of course they existed brianiac. However can you seriously deny that our fucked up intervention in Iraq is acting as a recruiting aid? Can you deny that?
Are you privy to facts that the security services aren't then?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/20/nblame220.xml
You already admitted they exist for you and not me. Fair enough, neh?
Hey, don't gte me wrong, I can see the use of such an idea, in 1945 "britain" I could have seen the use, most definitely, of banding with others to stop some fanatics. I just ask in the normal course of things, that you put your weapons down and don't force me to join in, that's all. You live in whatever reality you like, just don't ask me to pay for it or threaten me when I am not interested in it.
"Your" country....not mine. Fuck all to do with me. People's beliefs are not my concern, looking after myself is. It's an arbitary, optional, silly little game I have no interest in playing. I have to be mindful of those beliefs on occasion, but it's not so different from not antagonizing the asylum inmates to keep safe.
More rubbish that doesn't exist. This is a contract I have never seen, don't know the terms of, it can change retroactively, bind my children as yet unborn and requires me to first be present within entirely fictional boundaries. It doesn't require my consent, doesn't inform me, is binding upon me but not on the other party and last but not least there is no evidence that there is anyone else on the other side of it.
I'd love someone to unravel the "you are in the country because of the contract, the contract creates the country" catch 22 sometime, but I know it's impossible. A country is an assumed belief. Stop believing in it.
Anyway, where and when did I become a citizen? What day, date and location?
Flag's are just cloth and like all symbols mean whatever you want them to mean. Countries are political fictions and the thing they most resemble is mafia "protection" territories. If everyone died this evening, you wouldn't have any, you'd just have a globe. Belief - action - creation.
Better tell them that, they think it's the same thing and they have a lot of weapons.
The guy filming it didn't seem to be part of the group. The film was taken at a long distance, high up. I don't even thinkt he soliders knew they were being filmed. Though I havent seen all the video.
How it seems to me is this guy came across this incident and rather then it being some military version of happy slapping, it seems as if this one guy is getting off on it. I mean sexually. He sounds very disturbed. I don't think this si some entertainmnet video for his solider buddies to laugh at. So I wouldnt put it on par with the photos and it doesnt seem like some institutionalised army beating film culture. It seems one off.
secondly would we view the video so harshly without the colour commentary? I mean I have seen a few videos of different kinds and this video, while it does seem a an unaccpetabel use of force and beating people is worng. It doesn't look that different from some videos of police arrests I have seen. Some of those police videos where ou tof line and the police offciers were displined for thier use of force and others it was ruled as acceptable.
This video was actually taken 2 years ago. Why released now? What purpose? Coincidently at a time where there are muslims riots going over the danish cartoons. I think its purposeful and used by th emedia to get a nice headline. Because if you think abou tit, seeing this video means nothing to us. It doesnt affect our lives and it serves no prpose in helping the vitcims involved. If some1 was truelly wanting to blow th ewhislte on these guys then go to offical sources, and then one independant body to make sure its not swpet under th ecarpet. It doesnt need to go to the media. It only servces to fuel more hatred and put our troops (a new consignment heading out to afghanistan as speak, once again coincidence?) in danger. The media love it as they have this video to go on about for a few days, then the troops go out and they may face riots and suicde attacks etc and even die and then media can covere that story, then link it the video and then raise the "do we stay in iraq" question again, giving more days and nights of coverage and a chance for an award for theiur coverage.
We also have to consider that this video wa staking just fater a iot where the soliders were attacked. Note they used batons and sheilds. If it was any other army in the world, those kids would have been shot upon and instead of a beating, they would be dead or maimed. Thats some considerable restraint and something we should remember, because as bad as the beatings were, they did kind of get off lightly it can be seen.
I also don't think you can compare the incident with the sadam regime. Yes we went in to Iraq to free people from a brutal regime. But the Saddam method wasn't using troops to pull a few rioters off the streets and beat them. In the Saddam era, people were taking form their homes at night and never seen again. People were torured an dkileld for nothing or if just questioning the regime. They were tortured brutaly, physically and sexually. I dont mean sensory deprevation like the current usa methods are, I mean real torture like making people sit on glass bottles. The saddam era had men being held down and threatened or forced to watch their wives, daughters and sisters being raped in front of them. I know there were incidents in Iraq prisions after the war and such liek that but NOTHING that has come to light has compared with anything the Saddam regime did. Fact. So saying its just like saddam era is false.
I think people need to be careful when viewing this situation. I do not think its wide spread, despite certain Islamic groups claim it is.
Just a thought, but aren't a huge number being drawn into Iraq to fight?
So, wouldn't you prefer them to be there rather than on the Tubes of London, given that they existed before Iraq?
No one has been comparing the incident with the Saddam regime. However, the US (and by association the UK) are complicit in kidnap, torture and detention without trial. Abu Ghraib and Guantenomo bay ring any bells?
Well actually they have. The media is contantly saying "didnt we go into iraq to stop this kind of thing" and certain people asked to comment on it are saying its the same thing.
Well Quantenomo Bay is a legal (grey area admittedly) prisioner base, that holds captured terrorists or were on radar of being terrorists and are using recognised non harmful ( to a degree) use of methods to obtian intelligence. No matter what the prisioners get there it is not the same as being made to sit on bottles or raped is it?
Abu Ghraib is admittedly a case of solideres abusing prisioners and maybe civiliams. Though as I said, it seemd to me that was an isolated incident by a group of soliders rather then any kind of sanctioned treatment.
I am curious (and this is serious curiosity not trying to start trouble) how you manage to live in one of these nations that supposedly doesn't exist without acknowledging the effect it has on your life? Such as taxes, and the services it provides.
no
I could tell you, but it's based on a rule set by something that you believe doesn't exist, so that probably wouldn't do much good.
A flag is just a symbole, a symbole of a country, and a soldier wearing that symbole is seen as a representative of that country.
I will next time I get the chance to vote. I missed becomeing an adult in time to vote by about 4 months.
How would you feel if Mi5 kicked your door down now and took you away to an island without trial?
also, that island prision was set up AFTER the war in afgahnistan. The majority if not the whole lot of them were cpatured fighting forces in afghanistan or had links to terrorists. So hardly the innocent being vitcimised as you describe.
also has little bearing on my post that I made.
Fighting against an unvinited, foreign invader is not a crime. Never has been.
The most these people are, certainly the ones who were captured while fighting US forces in Afghanistan, is POWs. The US is breaking every law and convention in the book by refusing to treat these people as POWs and subjecting them to torture.
That is the reason Guantanamo is not in US soil.
Because it is as fucking illegal as anything could possibly ever be.
The trouble is that the more they're criticised the more they dig their heels in and say its no-one's business but there own
Find me a quote then.
Except that prisoners are sexually abused there, same as they are at Abu Ghraib. People (that's people, y'know, human beings) are being held without trial with no legal recourse and subjected to torture. Its not that far away from what Saddam did.
If you believe that, you're even more of a fool than I thought.
Under UK anti-terrorist legislation you can be detained without trial.
Except you actually have no idea whether they were linked to terrorists or not as there has been no legal process observed.
oh for gods sake.
They were terrorists and taliban you *bleep*. Its called a war you take prisionewrs in war and you detaine dterrorists to gain intelligence you *bleep*.
They ar enot subjecting them to torture and they ar enot POW's legally. They were given special status which means the rules dont apply to them and being off US soil, the US laws don't apply them either. Its crafty, its underhand but its legal. Get that through your head.
I am cutting down on my insults since I complain about people who insult me hince the *bleep*
It was on the ITV news. Watch some of the old coverage.
>Except that prisoners are sexually abused there, same as they are at Abu Ghraib. People (that's people, y'know, human beings) are being held without trial with no legal recourse and subjected to torture. Its not that far away from what Saddam did.
show me your proof of sexual abuse at Quantanomo. Quatnomo are prisoners are allowed to be held without trial. They are not torured in anywhere near the same fashion as saddam. Blatant exaggeration.
>If you believe that, you're even more of a fool than I thought.
whatever.
What planet do you live on?
Yes they are.
Says who?
No, it's not legal. That is why it's not done in US soil in the first place. Understand now, Einstein?
No they are not as the US classes them as non POW's. They are a special form of combtant, I forget the terminology now. Although, the taliban prisioners may come under POW status. But yes, they havent go tthem on US soil becaus ethen US law would have to apply to them. On non US soil it doesnt and with their special status, none of the war laws apply. Understand???
Interrogation and non physical methods is not torture! Stop being so sentaltionalist and sheep mentality.
I didn't realise the US had editorial control over international law and the Geneva Convention.
You haven't forgotten it because it doesn't exist.
:banghead:
You're not very bright are you?
Oh yeah? Let's humilliate you, sleep deprave you while blindfolded and bound for days at a time, and then see if you still that does not constitute torture.
Not to mention that there have been dozens of accounts of physical torture as well, but never mind eh?
Hiliarious. Take the stage Aladdin, your as funny as Bernad Manning.
Well when its there troops, their equipment, thei rmoney and their war they decide what they like.
Well since its covered in my university course of which I spent 3 years learning about many aspects of politicsl inculding this event, I think it does. Its non military combatants, or words to that effect. They are not covered in geneva conventions as they ar enot an offical ary or group. They do not comply to the standards to be in a na offical army or military group to claim POW status.
I am exceptionally bright my disney chum.
Well thats kindergarden compared to rape, thosuand cut torture, elcttrocucution, galss tortoure, bottle torture etc etc.
Thats the Grey Area, which though everyone will disagree with has not only been adopted by the USA but most powers and Governments that oppose Terrorism. Basically to comply with America's line on the whole thing, everyone else agreed with it.
Oh yeah? LOL
Incidentally, funny how you only apply such thinking to one side. Surely Saddam was doing nothing wrong in torturing and killing all those civilians you were telling us about earlier, was he? His country, his war, his rules...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
God the neocons would so much wish you had US citizenship. Guaranteed lifetime support and votes, no questions asked, all excuses and stories duly accepted without doubt.
Who said it? When? In what context?
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng
I rest my case.